On 8 May 2017 at 01:04, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Synopsis:       softraid crypto performance regression
>> Category:       system
>> Environment:
>>
>         System      : OpenBSD 6.1
>         Details     : OpenBSD 6.1-current (GENERIC.MP) #51: Sat May  6
> 12:01:40 MDT 2017
>                          [email protected]:/us
> r/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
>
>         Architecture: OpenBSD.amd64
>         Machine     : amd64
>
>> Description:
>>
> The issue appeared after upgrading from the April 20th snapshot to
> the May 6th one.  For context, my whole disk is encrypted, as
> described in the FAQ (https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#softraidFDE);
> see below for disklabel information.
>
> With the April 20th snapshot, disk performance was fine; but with
> the May 6th snapshot everything is slow. For example, where before
> it took ~5 seconds for Libreoffice to open, now it takes ~30 seconds.
>
>
> How-To-Repeat:
>>
> These instructions assume that you have the same disk setup as me; see
> below for my disklabel information.
> 1. download OpenBSD 6.1 miniroot.fs
> 2. dd it to a USB drive
> 3. boot it
> 4. when the OpenBSD installer prompt comes up, hit "s" for (S)hell
> 5. configure the existing crypto volume:
>      # bioctl -c C -l /dev/sd0a softraid0
>      (enter existing volume password)
>      (crypto volume now mounted on /dev/sd2*)
> 6. mount a partition in the crypto volume:
>      # mount /dev/sd2k /mnt
>      # cd /mnt
> 7. create a blob of random data:
>      # dd if=/dev/random of=random_data bs=1m count=512
> 8. test disk performance:
>      # for i in 1 2 3; do sync && time cp random_data test$i; done
> 9. record results
> 10. repeat from step 1, replacing the 6.1 miniroot.fs with the May 6th
> snapshot miniroot.fs
> 11. compare results
>
> Here's my results:
>   6.1:            28.89s,   36.39s,   27.63s
>   May 6 snapshot: 2m12.01s, 2m16.31s, 2m30.47s
>
> I know that many commits occurred between 6.1's release and May 6,
> so, if needed, I can bisect for the problem commit. Besides that,
> let me know if you need more info.
>
>
> Fix:
>>
>         Not known.
>
>
Hi,

You observe a decrease in performance because we've switched to
a constant time machine independent AES implementation which is
inherently slower than the T-table version.  Users with CPUs
supporting AES-NI are not affected by this since the AES-NI
driver provides it's own constant time implementation.

Regards,
Mike

Reply via email to